If a pro bono attorney wins fees from an opposing party (who is usually unaware that the attorney is acting pro bono), isn't that the same as the pro bono attorney working on a no-win no-fee basis? Doesn't that undermine the fundamental premise of working pro bono?Neither response seems to answer the question. An attorney can do pro-bono work for a client but get paid by the opposing party if the attorney wins. Sounds like the attorney has a vested interest in representing people Pro Bono in order to extract fees out of someone else. If they are truly pro bono, they would waive fees. But then who would do "Pro Bono" work, right?